Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> Y'know, it's funny how, when using other formats, rarely is it said that >> an 80mm lens for a 6x6 is "equivalent" to a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera. >> When's the last time you heard a 4x5 user ask "What's that lens in 35mm >> terms?" > >Ummm... pretty much every time I show a large or medium format camera to a >customer. :) I've been playing with 35mm cameras for a long time. Maybe >after I've used my 67 for long enough with enough different lenses, I >won't need to translate angle of coverage into 35mm terms. But that's a >long way in the future. Right now, every MedF lens except for the handful >that I've used doesn't make sense to me unless I translate it into 35mm >coverage.
I always think of my 645 lenses in terms of their 35mm equivalents. In fact, I've been considering getting a 135mm lens (for my 35mm cameras) after discovering how much I like the 200mm focal length on my 645. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
